Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are animals conscious? New research

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 544 posts

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#61

Post by [deleted] »

albertopv wrote: post #48
throwup238 wrote: post #38

> We now know that bees can count, recognise human faces and learn how to use tools. I was curious what that means in this context and found this research (co-authored by Prof Chittka mentioned in the article): https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou... Apparently only a small minority of bumble bees can figure out how to pull a string to access a reward, but then other bees adopt the behavior by…

"Apparently only a small minority of bumble bees can figure out how to pull a string to access a reward, but then other bees adopt the behavior by mimicry." Replace bumble bees with human beigns and "pull a string" with an engineering task and you'll find we are not so different. /sarcasm, but not too much, average human being is quite dumb, tbh.

[deleted]

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#63

Post by klyrs »

ang_cire wrote: post #53
epgui wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To prove this would require being able to very clearly define consciousness, but we know that consciousness is not “a thing”— it’s rather “a collection of things”, and it’s not either there or not; rather it’s largely a question of degree. And I don’t just mean this as inter-species variation either: even if we only look at humans, humans exhibit the whole spectrum and/or patchwork of states of consciousness, both de…

People out there with so little to feel good about they got to pretend animals don't think to feel better about themselves. Anthropocentrism is a hell of a drug.

My understanding of the history here is that scientific understanding of the nature of animals was based on folklore, attributing supernatural properties to animals and their behavior. Scientists agreed to throw all that out, and rightfully so, in preference for an evidence-based approach. And what we're seeing today, is that despite a couple centuries of assuming that animals are pure instinct-driven automatons, we have tons of evidence that they are individuals with intelligence, memory, feelings, preferences and even language. Where "they" spans the range from bees to whales.

The assumptions of the recent centuries weren't so much anthropocentric, but a rejection of folklore as literal truth. While some are still attached to an anthropocentric worldview, that perspective seems dead among people who study animal behavior.

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#64

Post by grantcas »

poikroequ wrote: post #6

The trouble I have with much of this discussion is it assumes many traits of animal behavior are indicative of consciousness. Bees play with balls, therefore consciousness? You can't just jump straight to that conclusion. There is so much our brains do that is subconscious, that we are not aware of. Heck, even signs of self awareness may not be indicative of consciousness. Arguably we are at the point that we could t…

[dead]

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#65

Post by reso »

We need to ban the word "conscious" until people can agree on what it means.

That being said, its obvious to me that many animals have similar emotional complexity to humans, and many outperform humans on some cognitive tasks.

Humans have complex language, and that's about it, to separate us from other animals.

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#66

Post by lolinder »

> Attributing consciousness to animals based on their responses was seen as a cardinal sin. The argument went that projecting human traits, feelings, and behaviours onto animals had no scientific basis and there was no way of testing what goes on in animals’ minds.

What's always been funny to me about the scientific approach to animal consciousness/emotions/empathy is that in a perfectly rational world the default assumption would be that animals and humans exist along a spectrum and there isn't a sharp cliff where humans are 100% conscious and empathetic but dogs are 0%. The claim that humans are categorically different than other animals is the extraordinary one, not the claim that we are made of mostly the same stuff.

The only reason why animal consciousness has been controversial historically is a religious one—the Bible has typically been read as placing humanity in a category of its own. And yet we see countless secular scientists clinging to that perspective when even a cursory glance at the evidence and a basic application of Occam's razor would suggest the opposite.

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#67

Post by qarl »

throwup238 wrote: post #38

> We now know that bees can count, recognise human faces and learn how to use tools. I was curious what that means in this context and found this research (co-authored by Prof Chittka mentioned in the article): https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou... Apparently only a small minority of bumble bees can figure out how to pull a string to access a reward, but then other bees adopt the behavior by…

> IMO I think we're doomed to move the goalposts on intelligence for a while

I'm old enough to remember back when we thought language was the defining element of intelligence. Dogs can't talk - dogs aren't intelligent.

Now LLMs can talk, and we've shifted intelligence to mean animal intelligence - being able to predict the motion of a falling ball, wanting to protect your children, etc.

Some people truly cannot tolerate the idea that our intelligence/existence isn't magical, so they'll desperately move it again and again and again... forever. Watch.

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#68

Post by mgh2 »

lolinder wrote: post #66

> Attributing consciousness to animals based on their responses was seen as a cardinal sin. The argument went that projecting human traits, feelings, and behaviours onto animals had no scientific basis and there was no way of testing what goes on in animals’ minds. What's always been funny to me about the scientific approach to animal consciousness/emotions/empathy is that in a perfectly rational world the default as…

> a cursory glance at the evidence and a basic application of Occam's razor would suggest the opposite.

Care to elaborate/expand?

PS: Being downvoted for a simple question shows how biased (sometimes toxic) HN can become...

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#69

Post by epgui »

klyrs wrote: post #63
ang_cire wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People out there with so little to feel good about they got to pretend animals don't think to feel better about themselves. Anthropocentrism is a hell of a drug.

My understanding of the history here is that scientific understanding of the nature of animals was based on folklore, attributing supernatural properties to animals and their behavior. Scientists agreed to throw all that out, and rightfully so, in preference for an evidence-based approach. And what we're seeing today, is that despite a couple centuries of assuming that animals are pure instinct-driven automatons, we…

I have a few nits to pick here...

> scientific understanding of the nature of animals was based on folklore

Popular, pre- or proto- scientific understanding perhaps, but not scientific understanding per se.

> despite a couple centuries of assuming that animals are pure instinct-driven automatons, we have tons of evidence that they are individuals with intelligence, memory, feelings, preferences and even language

These things are not mutually exclusive. The words "intelligence", "memory", "feelings", "preferences" and "language" can refer to purely automatic/mechanical processes, even when we're speaking in reference to humans. There's no real reason why we need non-mechanistic magic to explain the human experience. The two ideas are compatible: animals are conscious, and humans are "just" really complex machines. It's all the same stuff, viewed from different lenses.

> The assumptions of the recent centuries weren't so much anthropocentric

They were, and they still are. Folklore itself is for the most part very anthropocentric.

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#70

Post by DangitBobby »

klyrs wrote: post #63
ang_cire wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People out there with so little to feel good about they got to pretend animals don't think to feel better about themselves. Anthropocentrism is a hell of a drug.

My understanding of the history here is that scientific understanding of the nature of animals was based on folklore, attributing supernatural properties to animals and their behavior. Scientists agreed to throw all that out, and rightfully so, in preference for an evidence-based approach. And what we're seeing today, is that despite a couple centuries of assuming that animals are pure instinct-driven automatons, we…

The human attitude towards our relationship with animals cannot be described as anything other than anthropocentric for the vast majority of people. Whether the origin of that attitude is due to the rejection of certain traditions assuming animals to be sacred or the adoption of traditions treating humans as sacred, it exists, and causes horrific mistreatment of animals on a global scale.
Post reply on HN